US arms sales to Bahrain to resume
By Geoff Dyer in Washington
May 12, 2012 12:09 am

The US is to resume selling arms to Bahrain a little more than a year after a harsh crackdown on anti-government protesters and despite continued claims of human rights abuses in the Gulf kingdom, which is a key US ally.

The Obama administration said that the arms sales, which Congress has been notified about, would include upgrades for Bahrain’s defence force, but would not involve weapons that could be used against demonstrators.

The decision to restart arms sales was the result of “national security interests”, said Victoria Nuland, state department spokeswoman. It follows a visit to Washington this week by Sheikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s crown prince, who met with Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and Leon Panetta, defence secretary.

Home to the US 5th fleet, Bahrain has been a key partner of the US in the Gulf for more than 60 years and the military facilities in the country are a central plank in the Pentagon’s efforts to deter Iran.

Other US allies in the region, notably Saudi Arabia, have also put pressure on Washington to maintain its support for Bahrain’s ruling Sunni Muslim royal family, which has faced widespread unrest among the majority Shia Muslim population.

However, the administration came under heavy pressure to scale back its ties last March after Manama declared a state of emergency in response to protests following the entry of Saudi and Emirati troops. In October, $53m in planned arms sales were put on hold pending an investigation of alleged human rights abuses.

A senior state department official said that the new arms sales would help boost the country’s external defences and would include air-to-air missiles, components for F-16 fighter jets and potentially a naval frigate. However, they would not include Humvees, stun grenades or tear gas.

“We are mindful of the continued human rights issues,” said a senior official. “Right now they are at an impasse and the violence is a result of that.”

In a speech last November, Hillary Clinton reflected on the conflicts of interest thrown up by the Arab Spring, particularly in Bahrain. It was fair for people to ask “why does America promote democracy one way in some countries and another way in others?” But she said that each country in the region was different and the administration needed to weigh the risk to US forces, the potential threat from al-Qaeda and the need to keep oil supplies flowing. “It would be foolish to take a one-size-fits-all approach and barrel forward regardless of circumstances on the ground,” she said.

As tensions with Iran have escalated in recent years, the US has been keen to use arms sales to boost the military capabilities of its allies in the region, most notably the $60bn deal with Saudi Arabia which was announced in 2010.

Because all roads don't lead to Obama -- they lead to the military industrial complex, which have Obama's nuts in a vice. Just like they do with every other President in modern history. If you think President McCain would be acting any differently right now, you're naive.

I believe you think it is necessarily a bad thing for a dictator to be killing peaceful democratic protesters. Yet I'm pretty sure you'll be pulling levers for Republican Presidential candidates for the conceivable future despite the fact that they are going to be supporting a dictator doing exactly that.

I am okay with us simply acting in our own best interests here. If the Broncos play the Raiders, I might not want either side to win, so I'm perfectly content just scalping tickets.

I simply have no rooting interest between the two factions of radical Islamist dickbags in Bahrain. If they want to buy our guns at a profit to us, bang bang.

Unless you're willing to say the Republican Party has never offended you with their policies, and/or you've never objected to their politics, then you're in the same boat I'm in.

If a Republican knowingly appointed a pro choice judge to the SCOTUS, I sure as shit wouldn't vote for him again.

There is a difference between disagreeing on issues that are only tertiary in my mind versus those that strike at my core. If this isn't an issue that strikes at your core, then so be it. If it does yet you choose to support the letter "D" over your core values, then screw you for having low character.

Have "they" threatened to kill him if he doesn't approve such arms sales?

Have "they" threatened to withhold money from him?

You stated it. Back it up with facts.

I did state it -- it's common knowledge.

The department of defense is married to a very large, very wealthy chunk of the private sector creating an unholy marriage of government politicking and shareholder dictating. You know this.

This department and its private sector marriage partner have been incredibly effective at lobbying Congress and both political parties into its pocket. You know this.

Think of the NRA, or the AARP. That's the degree of pull the MIC has, perhaps even more severe. Neither party can challenge the core fundamentals of any of these groups without getting sacrificed at the next election. You know this.

This applies to Obama as much as it does anybody in DC. And you know that.